Well lets see if these Ham Radio QSO's that I have had -- would be of
interest to you:
1. A QSO with a Navy dirigible crew member -- flew in the 1930's airships.
2. A QSO with an archeologist in the Central America -- just discovered new
ruins.
3. A WWII Luftwaffe pilot - flew a ME-109
4. QSO with a Swedish Ham -- we talked about Soloman Andre's balloon flight
to the North pole -- in 1897
5. A QSO with a British soldier in the Falklands -- we talked about
Shackletons ordeal in 1908 and the Falkland war
6. An anthropologist in New Guinea -- we talked about a tribe there that was
virtually in the stone age
7. A missionary in the Amazon -- we talked about the tribe he was helping
8. A chap in Australia that was in the outback studying the aborigines
9. A Russian officer in an arctic weather station --- brrr -- we talked
about the incredible working conditions there

Lots more "boring stuff"

If the above is of no interest to you I suggest you have very limited
interests.

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?



"Bathrooman" wrote in message
ups.com...
For more than 50 years, some hams have been yelling "Ham Radio is
Dying!" "Ham Radio is Dying!" They came up with all kinds of bright
ideas. Incentive licensing...school clubs...extra-easy study
guides...dumbing down the licensing tests...no code licenses...on and
on. Why do some hams believe ham radio is dying? They are bored with
the hobby themselves! They put together some equipment, strung up
antennas, exchanged signal and weather reports, chased certificates,
collected QSL cards and after a few years or more of this they ask: "Is
this all there is?" Bah Humbug...yup that's about all it is. So what?
What more do you want it to be?

Well let's look at some numbers shall we....


The following are the Numbers of people entering the amateur radio service:

DATE TOTAL
--------------------------------------
12/04/04 671,837
01/02/05 667,562 down by 4,275
01/09/05 668,051 up by 489
01/16/05 668,750 up by 735
TOTAL STILL DOWN 3,015

The bottom line numbers really don't lie...people can say amateur radio is
on the rise but the actually truth is the number of people getting in the
service is still down from the previous month

Todd







"Bathrooman" wrote in message
ups.com...
For more than 50 years, some hams have been yelling "Ham Radio is
Dying!" "Ham Radio is Dying!" They came up with all kinds of bright
ideas. Incentive licensing...school clubs...extra-easy study
guides...dumbing down the licensing tests...no code licenses...on and
on. Why do some hams believe ham radio is dying? They are bored with
the hobby themselves! They put together some equipment, strung up
antennas, exchanged signal and weather reports, chased certificates,
collected QSL cards and after a few years or more of this they ask: "Is
this all there is?" Bah Humbug...yup that's about all it is. So what?
What more do you want it to be?





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...
Well let's look at some numbers shall we....


The following are the Numbers of people entering the amateur radio
service:

DATE TOTAL
--------------------------------------
12/04/04 671,837
01/02/05 667,562 down by 4,275
01/09/05 668,051 up by 489
01/16/05 668,750 up by 735
TOTAL STILL DOWN 3,015

The bottom line numbers really don't lie...people can say amateur radio is
on the rise but the actually truth is the number of people getting in the
service is still down from the previous month

Todd


And as any competent statistician can tell you, a variation over this short
time frame for this type of data is not likely to be significant. You have
to look at longer term data. In addition, changes of less than 1% are
seldom signficant.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Todd Daugherty wrote:

The Death of Amateur Radio

By

Todd Daugherty N9OGL

I've been asked on the newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy
to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the FCC's
suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to write
this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio operators who
will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some crack
pot.

Well, Todd, I've read the entire thing and I've not written it off "as
the writes by some crack pot". I've written it off "as the writes by
some" special crackpot.


But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to be mine.

....and you aren't one to allow reality to stand in your way.

Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree with
that statement however, this is a harsh reality.

Many radio amateurs would disagree with your statement because it has no
basis in fact. Now THAT is harsh reality.

Now as I stated above I
have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do. Amateur
radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial services.

Amateur radio isn't a commercial service and isn't in competition with
commercial services. It has no reason to "keep up".

On
February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the heck is
Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named "Inquisitor"
anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the
internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically compete with
the internet.

Packet radio is not the internet. It has no reason to become like the
internet.

For amateur radio to survive
they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be no
amateur radio in near future.

Sure, Todd--and amateur astronomy is going to have to compete with
roller blading or there will be no amateur astronomy in the future.

As I stated on the newsgroup
rec.radio.amateur.policy look at it this way. Go to streets of your town as
ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the
Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast majority of
people would pick the internet. The reason is the internet provides a vast
variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via email, chat
rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With
Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more.

Ask the average man on the street to choose between the stamp collecting
and the internet and he'll likely choose the internet. He knows more
about the internet and stamp collecting has no provision for downloading
pirated music or pornography.

Amateur radio has variety of information unlike the internet. People
can talk via their voices, via morse, via keyboard modes, via
television. The two are not the same thing. That's why I'm introducing
Amateur Radio II, aka Amateur Radio Lite. It'll be like amateur radio
but without all of the icky stuff like "RF", "IF", fomulae and morse
code. It'll draw those folks who are "otherwise qualified" and mildly
interested.

Why should someone
take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world via
radio when they can do it on the internet?

Why would someone take up tightrope walking when there are perfectly
good sidewalks? Why would anyone walk when they can drive a car?


One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude is both
the amateur and FCC's view on content control.

Ahhhh. This is where Todd gets into his favorite rant.

Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC for
controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to the
amateur radio service. However, this seems NOT to be the case.

You've been given free advice from a professional in the field. You've
chosen to ignore the advice because it conflicts with your rather
uneducated view of the regulations.

When I
announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a post
from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio
service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can send me a
"QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning
letter. This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for
the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech.

A smarter fellow would have taken the hint which Mr. Hollingsworth
dropped.

In 1990 the
FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and of
course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick their
Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it.

I doubt that the ARRL "deiced" anything. Your choice of nicknames
further marks you as a very special crackpot.

I was asked on
the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have a FCC
official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information bulletin
which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech by a
Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion is being
suppressed by the FCC.

You were repeatedly asked which things you were being prevented from
saying over the air via amateur radio. You never bothered to reply.
You've provided the FCC enough ammunition through your public statements
here, to nail your hide to the barn door if you decide that you want to
play boy broadcaster.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

The Death of Amateur Radio

By

Todd Daugherty N9OGL

I've been asked on the newsgroup
rec.radio.amateur.policy
to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the
FCC's
suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to write
this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio operators
who
will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some
crack
pot.

Well, Todd, I've read the entire thing and I've not written it off "as
the writes by some crack pot". I've written it off "as the writes by
some" special crackpot.


But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to be mine.

...and you aren't one to allow reality to stand in your way.

Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree
with
that statement however, this is a harsh reality.

Well let's look at some numbers shall we....


The following are the Numbers of people entering the amateur radio service:

DATE TOTAL
--------------------------------------
12/04/04 671,837
01/02/05 667,562 down by 4,275
01/09/05 668,051 up by 489
01/16/05 668,750 up by 735
TOTAL STILL DOWN 3,015

The bottom line numbers really don't lie...people can say amateur radio is
on the rise but the actually truth is the number of people getting in the
service is still down from the previous month


Many radio amateurs would disagree with your statement because it has no
basis in fact. Now THAT is harsh reality.

Now as I stated above I
have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do. Amateur
radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial services.

Amateur radio isn't a commercial service and isn't in competition with
commercial services. It has no reason to "keep up".

And it's THAT attitude that will kill amateur radio. No one will come to the
service if there is something BETTER out there.

On
February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the heck
is
Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named
"Inquisitor"
anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the
internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically compete
with
the internet.

Packet radio is not the internet. It has no reason to become like the
internet.

That's YOUR opinion, Packet could be better then the Internet but wait
dumbass like you don't want that.

For amateur radio to survive
they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be no
amateur radio in near future.

Sure, Todd--and amateur astronomy is going to have to compete with
roller blading or there will be no amateur astronomy in the future.

Not comparable, what you are comparing is two hobbies while I'm comparing
two communication system, One dominate (internet) and the other is a third
class communication system (amateur radio).


As I stated on the newsgroup
rec.radio.amateur.policy look at it this way. Go to streets of your town
as
ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the
Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast majority
of
people would pick the internet. The reason is the internet provides a
vast
variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via email,
chat
rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With
Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more.

Ask the average man on the street to choose between the stamp collecting
and the internet and he'll likely choose the internet. He knows more
about the internet and stamp collecting has no provision for downloading
pirated music or pornography.

The majority of people don't what amateur radio is...and the vast majority
of people don't care.

Amateur radio has variety of information unlike the internet. People
can talk via their voices, via Morse, via keyboard modes, via
television. The two are not the same thing. That's why I'm introducing
Amateur Radio II, aka Amateur Radio Lite. It'll be like amateur radio
but without all of the icky stuff like "RF", "IF", fomulae and morse
code. It'll draw those folks who are "otherwise qualified" and mildly
interested.
Voice, Morse code, television on and on can ALL be done on the internet.
what amateurs need to is advance and come up with something a lot new...My
packet idea is one way.

Why should someone
take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world via
radio when they can do it on the internet?

Why would someone take up tightrope walking when there are perfectly
good sidewalks? Why would anyone walk when they can drive a car?


One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude is
both
the amateur and FCC's view on content control.

Ahhhh. This is where Todd gets into his favorite rant.

Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC for
controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to the
amateur radio service. However, this seems NOT to be the case.

You've been given free advice from a professional in the field. You've
chosen to ignore the advice because it conflicts with your rather
uneducated view of the regulations.

No but this bull**** idea that you have to be a lawyer to read rules and
regulation which are straight forward is that bull****.

When I
announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a
post
from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio
service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can send
me a
"QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning
letter. This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works
for
the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech.

A smarter fellow would have taken the hint which Mr. Hollingsworth
dropped.
First off the system wasn't up and running so he should of shut his ****ing
mouth because information bulletins are LEGAL. My information bulletins run
on one day, for one hour and deal with amateur radio issues....thus legal.
If it's interfering with transmission (which it isn't) fine then go after
the interference but to get on a newsgroups and intimidate a system BEFORE
IT'S EVEN ON is showing how he and the ****ing FCC really are...ASSHOLES!

In 1990 the
FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and of
course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick
their
Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it.

I doubt that the ARRL "deiced" anything. Your choice of nicknames
further marks you as a very special crackpot.

I was asked on
the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have a
FCC
official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information
bulletin
which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech by
a
Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion is
being
suppressed by the FCC.

You were repeatedly asked which things you were being prevented from
saying over the air via amateur radio. You never bothered to reply.
You've provided the FCC enough ammunition through your public statements
here, to nail your hide to the barn door if you decide that you want to
play boy broadcaster.

Intimidate someone before they have the system is even up and running is a
form of suppression. secondly if you didn't read above my information
bulletins are legal. My information bulletins run on one day, for one hour
and deal with amateur radio issues. They are legal regardless of what you
think.


Todd N9OGL


Dave K8MN




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Todd Daugherty wrote:



And it's THAT attitude that will kill amateur radio. No one will come to the
service if there is something BETTER out there.

Getting too many in ham radio like you will kill ham radio.

**** you cornhole
Todd

"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:



And it's THAT attitude that will kill amateur radio. No one will come to
the
service if there is something BETTER out there.

Getting too many in ham radio like you will kill ham radio.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Attract em with some kinda new fangled packet racket. Yeah right.

Todd Daugherty wrote:
Very mature reply toddyboy.

**** you cornhole
Todd

"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...

Todd Daugherty wrote:



And it's THAT attitude that will kill amateur radio. No one will come to

the

service if there is something BETTER out there.


Getting too many in ham radio like you will kill ham radio.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Todd Daugherty wrote:
The Death of Amateur Radio

By

Todd Daugherty N9OGL

I've been asked on the newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy
to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the
FCC's
suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to
write
this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio
operators who
will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some
crack
pot. But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to
be mine.

OK, let's see what you've got, Todd.


Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree
with
that statement however, this is a harsh reality.

OK - how is it "dying"?

Now as I stated above I
have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do.
Amateur
radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial
services.

How do you define "keep up with"?

On
February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the
heck is
Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named
"Inquisitor"
anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the
internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically
compete with
the internet.

Why?

The internet is pretty much ubiquitous in the USA and other developed
countries, if you live where there is reliable telephone service.
Broadband access is expanding rapidly and so is mobile access. There's
no way hams can match the infrastructure of any internet provider.

One amateur radio operator Charles Brabham N5PVL made this
statement in responds to mine:

N9OGL:" My point is Packet does not have the variety like the
internet and
when a person comes up with a new idea for packet or a new program
idea for
packet it is seemed to be frowned upon by other operators. So packet
radio
will remain in last place behind the Internet, and Wireless systems."

N5PVL: "I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Packet Radio is
not a
commercial communications network, and so does not "compete" with
commercial
communications networks in any way.

He's right!

Packet is for Amateur Radio operators who enjoy digital
communications
*independent* of commercial communications networks and the Internet.

Exactly!

Of course it's different... It's supposed to be, for a number of
reasons. If
it offered exactly the same thing as the commercial nets, there would
be no
reason for it to exist at all.

Try thinking this stuff through, every once in a while."

Sounds like good advice.

Now the reason I bring this up is simply that this misguided amateur
radio
operator WAS trying to prove a point which he could not; simply for
two
reasons.

Looks to me like he proved his point. If you want packet radio to be
something other than it is, lead the way by example.

The first is that most of the BBS systems on packet were on the
forwarding system and the vast majority of messages on the BBS
systems were
all the same. Regardless to what Mr. Brabham said this was a harsh
reality.
What Mr. Brabham didn't realize was at the time of that post I had
been
running TWO BBS systems on packet. Most packet operators didn't want
no
"individuals" running a BBS system and not use the forwarding system.
Today,
here in Illinois packet radio is nothing more then a vast memory. All
the
Nodes and BBS systems are gone. Gone for two reasons the first is the
BBS
operators were running their forwarding system on the user frequency.
The
second reason is as I stated in my post that there was no variety and
all
amateur radio operators went to the internet.

Which proves the point about competition.

Packet Radio was a prelude of
what will happen to amateur radio. Like N5PVL stated "I hate to be
the one
to break it to you, but Packet Radio is not a commercial
communications
network, and so does not "compete" with commercial communications
networks
in any way." This seems to be the attitude of all amateur radio
operators
when it comes to competing with other services.

Because it's true. Amateur radio, or *any* radio service, can only
survive by offering what other services cannot.

I remember a time, perhaps 20 years ago, when a good number of new hams
got their licenses for "honeydo" purposes. Today the same
communications needs are handled by cell phone. Some of those hams are
gone, others discovered that ham radio is more than the reason they
were originally licensed.

For amateur radio to survive
they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be
no
amateur radio in near future.

Why? I'm both on the air and online. Each medium offers things the
other does not.

Go to streets of your town as
ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the
Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast
majority of
people would pick the internet.

Of course. Think about *why*.

Also - why must it be one or the other? Why not both?

The reason is the internet provides a vast
variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via
email, chat
rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With
Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more.

That's one reason. Here are some mo

1) Most people already know about the internet and what it can do. Many
people do not know amateur radio exists, or have only a vague idea of
what it is.

2) Most people access the internet via a personal computer or a
wireless-enabled PDA-type device like a Blackberry. Those devices have
uses far beyond those of internet access.

3) No license. No antenna. Worldwide access 24/7.


Why should someone
take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world
via
radio when they can do it on the internet?

Because it's different. And only because it's different.

For amateur radio to grow amateur
radio operators are going to have to get out of this not competing
attitude.

Why?

One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude
is both
the amateur and FCC's view on content control.

Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC
for
controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to
the
amateur radio service.

Where, exactly, does it prohibit the FCC from controlling content? If
so,
why does Howard Stern have such problems? Why was there such a flap
about
Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"?

The various courts have repeatedly ruled that content control *is* part
of
FCC's authority. The arguments today are over where the line is, not
whether
FCC can draw a line.

However, this seems NOT to be the case. When I
announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a
post
from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio
service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can
send me a
"QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning
letter.

That was nice of him. He could have just let you break the rules and
then
started an enforcement proceeding.

This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for
the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech.

Sorry, unlimited free speech protection does not extend to the radio
spectrum.

One of the most known FCC free speech
suppression cases is the Liberty Net. Here's an article from
Newsline:

"FCC vs. The Liberty Net Riley Hollingsworth and the FCC are
questioning if
a controversial 75 meter SSB net really has any place on the ham
bands. The
group is called the Liberty Net. It operates nightly at 3.950 MHZ
and is
primarily an open discussion or right wing politics and conservative
causes.
But, in a May 7th letter to Victor Misek, W1WCR,Hollingsworth
requests that
the Hudson NewHampshire ham review the Basis and Purpose of Amateur
Radio as
outlined in Section 97.1 of the Commissions rules. He then tells
Misek to
explain to the Commission how the operation of the Liberty Net can be
justified. But it's another Hollingsworth statement that draws the
proverbial line in the sand between the FCC and the Liberty Net.
Hollingsworth tells Misek - and we quote -- "We are unable to
determine how
transmissions of this group met the standards of, or contribute to
the
purpose of, the allocation of frequencies for the Amateur Radio
Service."
In other words, the FCC appears to be questioning whether the content
of
communications by those involved in the Liberty Net meet the minimum
requisite requirements to be transmitted in the ham radio bands.And
Hollingsworth goes even further. He suggests that the Liberty Net
might
want to consider moving to the Internet or wait to wait and see if
the
Commission creates a low power FM broadcast service. If it does, the
net
might then want to apply for a broadcasting license grant. (FCC)

How is he wrong? I can't do routine business communications on the
ham bands, either.

The part one should look at is the part in which Hollingsworth stated
that
the Liberty Net should look at the internet or apply for a low power
FM
license. Apparently Mr. Hollingsworth never heard of Section 326.

I think he knows more about it than you do, Todd.

Now Mr.
Hollingsworth isn't the only FCC official that has done this; in 1990
the
FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and
of
course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick
their
Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it.

Ding! Godwin's Law violated. You lose, Todd.

Stating in ARRL Letter and World
Radio "The League maintains that the disputes can resolved by
enforcing
existing FCC regulations: One-way Broadcast, if they go beyond the
accepted
norms for such transmissions on the Amateur bands their illegal." So
who's
to say is the "ACCEPTED NORM"??

FCC, of course. And the accepted norm is pretty well-defined for
one-way transmissions:

1) Non-commercial in nature (ever notice how ARRL doesn't use W1AW to
solicit memberships or publication sales?)

2) Of *specific* interest to the *amateur radio* community

3) On a published schedule of transmissions (so everybody has a chance
to know where and when)

Would your transmissions meet all of those criteria?

The ARRL, why not the FCC could give the
ARRL the power and therefore Free speech could be suppressed.

What is it that you want to say?

The first
Amendment bars the government from stomping on free speech, but it
doesn't
apply to the ARRL which is a national organization from doing it.
Who's the
one pushing to K1MAN off the air?? The ARRL and its members.

Nope. It's FCC.

I was asked on
the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have
a FCC
official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information
bulletin
which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech
by a
Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion
is being
suppressed by the FCC.

What is it that you want to say in your bulletin, Todd? How does it
meet the criteria listed above?

73 de Jim, N2EY